I am on the way of being deist.
I think Richard dawkins is deist, too...At the most positive point of view, he is agnostik atheist.
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on September 08, 2018, 07:42:41 PM
I am on the way of being deist.
I think Richard dawkins is deist, too...At the most positive point of view, he is agnostik atheist.
OK. Remind me, you were coming to deism from which prior position?
Quote from: Baruch on September 08, 2018, 10:23:06 PM
OK. Remind me, you were coming to deism from which prior position?
From agnostic-atheism(negative atheism)
I can't say there is no God ''absolutely''... Nobody can...I give a chance him or her or them...
And i can't claim there is only one God, of course...Just non-knowing, that is: agnosticsm were my position...still so...
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on September 08, 2018, 10:36:58 PM
From agnostic-atheism(negative atheism)
I can't say there is no God ''absolutely''... Nobody can...I give a chance him or her or them...
And i can't claim there is only one God, of course...Just non-knowing, that is: agnosticsm were my position...still so...
Agnosticism comes in various flavors too. But at least it is modest. Being from Turkey you have a very different experience from mine. I have only visited Ephesus in 1983, and have a positive view of Turks (who I think are misunderstood, being non-Western). But I attended, with my daughter, the opening of the local Turkish Community Center. I happen to admire Rumi (who came from Afghanistan originally), the Mevlevis and Gulen.
Of course, everyone has skeletons in their closet, not just people from Turkey. History has many tragedies. My Y chromosome originated with the first animal tamers in SE Anatolia probably. Getting to W Europe as part of the Neolithic expansion.
My present view about G-d is very different now ... the people here helped me evolve, though not the way they intended.
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on September 08, 2018, 07:42:41 PM
I am on the way of being deist.
You're on your way. Next you will be praying for forgiveness. I'm just being silly; I have no beef with deists. Just don't start telling the rest of us that we aren't intelligent enough to agree with you, and we will all be good.
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on September 08, 2018, 07:42:41 PM
I am on the way of being deist.
I think Richard dawkins is deist, too...At the most positive point of view, he is agnostik atheist.
I was on my way to calling myself a deist at one time. For most, I suppose, that the absence of proof does not constitute proof; but slowly, over time, I find the sound of no proof so loud in my ears that I think it does constitute proof. I have challenged many a theist to fill in the blanks; to show any level of proof that any deity exists, even their own god (or even Jesus) is here or ever was here. All that I see and understand has a perfectly good reason for it--no divine work needed--so, I would love for any theist to put forth any proof at all. They can't for none exists. So, to be honest to myself, I discarded deist along with any other form of theism that has ever existed. I guess I'd be a strong atheist--but not really that. I don't like the term a-theist for that is a label that says I reject theists. I know some wonderful theist and would not disrespect them for anything. I am just not a believer in any gods--so, I like 'non-believer' better. Also as an atheist I'd be saying I'm against a fiction or nothing. That would be like saying I was against Bugs Bunny or Porky Pig--they're fictions and how can one be against them? I don't want to suggest to any theist that I need to be against their fiction, for they have nothing that is real; when they establish that their god is real, then I will be against that god.
You're a few months late for April Fools.
Quote from: Mike Cl on September 09, 2018, 11:11:00 AM
I was on my way to calling myself a deist at one time. For most, I suppose, that the absence of proof does not constitute proof; but slowly, over time, I find the sound of no proof so loud in my ears that I think it does constitute proof. I have challenged many a theist to fill in the blanks; to show any level of proof that any deity exists, even their own god (or even Jesus) is here or ever was here. All that I see and understand has a perfectly good reason for it--no divine work needed--so, I would love for any theist to put forth any proof at all. They can't for none exists. So, to be honest to myself, I discarded deist along with any other form of theism that has ever existed. I guess I'd be a strong atheist--but not really that. I don't like the term a-theist for that is a label that says I reject theists. I know some wonderful theist and would not disrespect them for anything. I am just not a believer in any gods--so, I like 'non-believer' better. Also as an atheist I'd be saying I'm against a fiction or nothing. That would be like saying I was against Bugs Bunny or Porky Pig--they're fictions and how can one be against them? I don't want to suggest to any theist that I need to be against their fiction, for they have nothing that is real; when they establish that their god is real, then I will be against that god.
Lots of reasons on a lot of levels.
There is the ontological reason against deity ... it is incoherent (and we don't like that)
There is the metaphysical reason against deity ... it is is metaphysical (and we don't like that)
There is the empirical reason against deity ... it is supernatural (and we don't like that)
There is the libertine reason against deity ... it is judgmental (and we don't like that)
There is the social reason against deity ... the majority of society, population and culture are religious (and we don't like that)
There is the political reason against deity ... religion isn't kept private, but influences politics (and we don't like that).
There are actually more reasons against theism than arguments in favor of theism ;-)
I agree with some of these, disagree with others.
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on September 08, 2018, 07:42:41 PM
I am on the way of being deist.
Good for you. Idc tbh.
QuoteI think Richard dawkins is deist, too...
Based on...?
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that the guy who the guy who wrote The God Delusion and describes himself as an atheist is probably an atheist. Shocking, I know.
QuoteAt the most positive point of view, he is agnostik atheist.
What do you mean by "most positive point of view"? A label is either accurate or inaccurate. Whatever else you're going on about is irrelevant.
QuoteI can't say there is no God ''absolutely''... Nobody can...I give a chance him or her or them...
Okay, so where do you stand on invisible dragons? We can't absolutely say those don't exist, either. Would you consider it logical to assume that maybe they do exist based on the fact that we can't definitively show that they don't exist?
Dawkins himself said ..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion
That while he was atheist, he was agnostic in a limited way. "fairies at the bottom of the garden" ... how English is that?
Quote from: Baruch on September 09, 2018, 02:14:55 PM
Lots of reasons on a lot of levels.
There is the ontological reason against deity ... it is incoherent (and we don't like that)
There is the metaphysical reason against deity ... it is is metaphysical (and we don't like that)
There is the empirical reason against deity ... it is supernatural (and we don't like that)
There is the libertine reason against deity ... it is judgmental (and we don't like that)
There is the social reason against deity ... the majority of society, population and culture are religious (and we don't like that)
There is the political reason against deity ... religion isn't kept private, but influences politics (and we don't like that).
There are actually more reasons against theism than arguments in favor of theism ;-)
I agree with some of these, disagree with others.
Theism is in place because people what the 'why' of existence. I like the 'why', too. But I would like the 'why' of a god or any gods. Why should I believe in one--or many? Show me that--why should I believe. There is no compelling reason to do so. Unless you can produce one bit of data that suggests there is possibly any gods, then I'll list reasons to be against that or those, gods. Until then, what is the point??? There isn't any. God is a fiction and nobody can prove otherwise.
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on September 08, 2018, 07:42:41 PM
I am on the way of being deist.
I'm just curious, but were you persuaded to deism by the strength of the "first cause" argument?
Quote from: Mike Cl on September 09, 2018, 02:38:43 PM
Theism is in place because people what the 'why' of existence. I like the 'why', too. But I would like the 'why' of a god or any gods. Why should I believe in one--or many? Show me that--why should I believe. There is no compelling reason to do so. Unless you can produce one bit of data that suggests there is possibly any gods, then I'll list reasons to be against that or those, gods. Until then, what is the point??? There isn't any. God is a fiction and nobody can prove otherwise.
Every living individual thing (and maybe some collective things) are living beings. G-d is Life, therefore all living things are manifestations of G-d. The living things being human beings ... are demi-gods, unless you are Egyptian of course. In which case cats are clearly demi-gods also.
Quote from: Baruch on September 09, 2018, 10:27:37 PM
Every living individual thing (and maybe some collective things) are living beings. G-d is Life, therefore all living things are manifestations of G-d. The living things being human beings ... are demi-gods, unless you are Egyptian of course. In which case cats are clearly demi-gods also.
I know this is what you believe. G-d cannot be 'life' for it was never alive--just the imagination of some. G-d is simply a fiction; can you demonstrate otherwise??
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on September 08, 2018, 07:42:41 PM
I am on the way of being deist.
I think Richard dawkins is deist, too...At the most positive point of view, he is agnostik atheist.
Richard Dawkins is quite blatantly not a deist.
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on September 08, 2018, 07:42:41 PM
I am on the way of being deist.
I think Richard dawkins is deist, too...At the most positive point of view, he is agnostik atheist.
(https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/67101145/wha-.jpg)
Quote from: Mike Cl on September 09, 2018, 11:57:29 PM
I know this is what you believe. G-d cannot be 'life' for it was never alive--just the imagination of some. G-d is simply a fiction; can you demonstrate otherwise??
Humans can't be life. Random combinations of atoms aren't living. That is the problem with bottom up thinking. I think bottom up and top down.
The other problem is group vs individual. For individualists, there are only individuals, no humanity. For collectivists, there is only humanity, not any individuals.
So for some there is no Life, just life. That is myopic anyway you cut it.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on September 10, 2018, 12:10:38 AM
Richard Dawkins is quite blatantly not a deist.
Theists can deal with deists, at least their definition of one, because it adds certain god characteristics to something. And Dawkins must therefore be a deist, because he must worship the universe, God's greatest creation, and at least that's something. Right? Not necessarily.
From my experience with theists saying, "Atheists worship science," or frequently, "Atheists worship the universe," I draw the conclusion that theists can't intellectually grasp not imbuing some special object or objects or concepts with animistic qualities that one cannot help but to worship. After all, this is what the Druids did. This is what many African tribes were still doing 30 years ago and no doubt still doing today when the missionaries aren't watching, therefore everyone must be doing it. They seem unable to comprehend not thinking magically about something: "OK if you don't think magically about some type of god, what do you think magically about?" Is that a question or a claim? It's both. It's a question making the claim that you imbue magical thinking to something.
It might be assumed that deists do this,
and some may actually do it.
Therefore Dawkins...
Quote from: Baruch on September 10, 2018, 06:31:52 AM
Humans can't be life. Random combinations of atoms aren't living. That is the problem with bottom up thinking. I think bottom up and top down.
The other problem is group vs individual. For individualists, there are only individuals, no humanity. For collectivists, there is only humanity, not any individuals.
So for some there is no Life, just life. That is myopic anyway you cut it.
No, that is nonsensical, anyway you cut it. You simply seem to hate thinking, reasoning and thinking out of your box. I am an individualist that also tends to lean toward being a loner. Yet, I don't dislike 'humanity'. Yes, there is a problem with the group vs the individual; but I'd label it as a tension, not a problem. Our constitution tackled that tension. And black-and-white thinking does not solve or even approach that tension. It takes an insightful, imaginative and reasonable person to see the shades of gray in that tension. And it takes patience and a willingness to look at the tension from many different angles. We are all both individualists and collectivists--stop with the 5th grade insistence upon black-and-white thinking.
'Humans can't be life.'----what the hell does that mean???? Of course humans are alive. So what? There is no Life--it seems to you and Mousie, that if you capitalize the first letter of a word that means Divinity. Your G-d is a fiction; and it matters not which letters are omitted or capitalized, there are not any gods--they are all fiction.
Quote from: Mike Cl on September 10, 2018, 08:42:39 AM
'Humans can't be life.'----what the hell does that mean???? Of course humans are alive.
The quote was: "Humans can't be life. Random combinations of atoms aren't living."
What is true of the parts must be true of the whole.
Therefore, poetry is meaningless because it's just random letters. Right?
But in fact, life or words are not just random combinations of atoms or letters. Whether arranged by chemical affinity, or monkeys on typewriters, the whole becomes more (and different) than the parts. The confusion about this reality isn't from thinking bottom up or from the top down. It's not even from backwards thinking as is done in reverse engineering. It is from disorganized thinking that results in absurd conclusions.
Quote from: Mike Cl on September 10, 2018, 08:42:39 AM
No, that is nonsensical, anyway you cut it. You simply seem to hate thinking, reasoning and thinking out of your box. I am an individualist that also tends to lean toward being a loner. Yet, I don't dislike 'humanity'. Yes, there is a problem with the group vs the individual; but I'd label it as a tension, not a problem. Our constitution tackled that tension. And black-and-white thinking does not solve or even approach that tension. It takes an insightful, imaginative and reasonable person to see the shades of gray in that tension. And it takes patience and a willingness to look at the tension from many different angles. We are all both individualists and collectivists--stop with the 5th grade insistence upon black-and-white thinking.
'Humans can't be life.'----what the hell does that mean???? Of course humans are alive. So what? There is no Life--it seems to you and Mousie, that if you capitalize the first letter of a word that means Divinity. Your G-d is a fiction; and it matters not which letters are omitted or capitalized, there are not any gods--they are all fiction.
Sorry, if you don't think like me (speaking as an egomaniac) then you are Wrong! (sarc)
Quote from: SGOS on September 10, 2018, 09:04:18 AM
The quote was: "Humans can't be life. Random combinations of atoms aren't living."
What is true of the parts must be true of the whole.
Therefore, poetry is meaningless because it's just random letters. Right?
But in fact, life or words are not just random combinations of atoms or letters. Whether arranged by chemical affinity, or monkeys on typewriters, the whole becomes more (and different) than the parts. The confusion about this reality isn't from thinking bottom up or from the top down. It's not even from backwards thinking as is done in reverse engineering. It from disorganized thinking that results in absurd conclusions.
Correct as far as you go. Letters make up words, and usually only words have meaning. But existence is meaningless, so I am told. So how did you learn to read then? Must have been impossible.
We don't have much problem with words, that describe something individual and concrete (a cat for instance). But we start having problems with collective nouns (cats for instance) .. and we go off the deep end with abstract nouns (cattiness for instance). This is a part of the spectrum of human psychology. Not judging, just describing the variety out there. Why is philosophy hard? It deals with the worst abstract nouns (beauty for instance).
Quote from: Mike Cl on September 10, 2018, 08:42:39 AM
No, that is nonsensical,
And this is Baruch in a nutshell.
Emphasis on the "nut"
A nut in a shell all his own.
Quote from: Unbeliever on September 10, 2018, 06:07:31 PM
A nut in a shell all his own.
Hemlet would have counted me lucky! Is that you, poor paper-mache Yorick?
Quote from: Baruch on September 10, 2018, 12:59:27 PM
But existence is meaningless, so I am told. So how did you learn to read then? Must have been impossible.
Existence is meaningless--so you are told? By whom on this site?? I don't remember anybody saying that. What does learning to read have to do with it?? Oh yeah, I do remember many, many, or even more than many, teachers saying all the time--'Little Johnny just can't learn to read since he has not discovered what the meaning of his life is. It is so sad, but it happens sooooooooo often.' Yeah, that problem is just everywhere!!
Just because others don't subscribe to your view of the universe, you are constantly in a fit of pique. I guess because your G-d gives you such accurate info about all the mysteries or unknowns of the universe and you are just trying to help us poor blind fools along.
Quote from: Mike Cl on September 10, 2018, 08:08:09 PM
Existence is meaningless--so you are told? By whom on this site?? I don't remember anybody saying that. What does learning to read have to do with it?? Oh yeah, I do remember many, many, or even more than many, teachers saying all the time--'Little Johnny just can't learn to read since he has not discovered what the meaning of his life is. It is so sad, but it happens sooooooooo often.' Yeah, that problem is just everywhere!!
Just because others don't subscribe to your view of the universe, you are constantly in a fit of pique. I guess because your G-d gives you such accurate info about all the mysteries or unknowns of the universe and you are just trying to help us poor blind fools along.
The nihilists have opined. Are you one? Didn't claim you were.
Yes, my god ... a dictionary ... look up Life vs life etc. People discard words or meanings of words, if they aren't confirmation bias.
Quote from: Baruch on September 10, 2018, 10:26:50 PM
The nihilists have opined. Are you one? Didn't claim you were.
Yes, my god ... a dictionary ... look up Life vs life etc. People discard words or meanings of words, if they aren't confirmation bias.
Your G-d is a dictionary??!! Don't think so.
Didn't find a dictionary that had a listing for Life and one for life. So, what is the difference? And yes, Baruch, as tho you don't know this, people discard words and meanings; change them; and misuse them. So????? Just because you use Life (w/cap.) does not bestow any divine meaning to it--well, maybe it does for you......and your G-d.
Quote from: SGOS on September 10, 2018, 08:09:09 AM
Theists can deal with deists, at least their definition of one, because it adds certain god characteristics to something.
As an aside, it kinda bugs me how people use theist and deist as if they're mutually exclusive groups when I consider them to heavily overlap.
Here's my flow chart:
"Do you believe in a god(s)?" Yes = Theist | No = Atheist
[to theists] Do you believe in a personal, interventionist god? Yes = Christians/Muslims/Jews/etc | No = Deists
In my mind, all deists are theists but not all theists are deists.
Quote from: SGOS on September 10, 2018, 09:04:18 AM
But in fact, life or words are not just random combinations of atoms or letters. Whether arranged by chemical affinity, or monkeys on typewriters, the whole becomes more (and different) than the parts.
Put letters together to create a word, and you still have the individual parts. You can clearly see them, but it creates an entirely different experience in your brain. This isn't a perfect analogy for what happens when you put atoms together.
Putting atoms together creates a far more dramatic result. You can no longer see the parts, and the whole appears to have no relationship to the parts. Chemists can symbolize the parts in their equations, but the equation doesn't describe how completely different the whole is from the parts. The parts blend so well that it's almost like a new part, perhaps even a new atom for all we knew, and actually 200 years ago, scientists didn't even know that pure looking substances even had parts that were completely unlike the whole. You can't see the oxygen or the hydrogen in water. In fact, before they were combined you couldn't see anything. Now it's water sloshing, dripping, and running down a river.
And the new wholes combine again with other parts or even other wholes to make more mysterious substances. Remember when you first leaned that you could put two deadly poisons together, sodium and chlorine and end up with a completely harmless substance table salt that you eat everyday? I remember being so stunned by that I wouldn't have been more surprised than if I were told that you could put a rabbit and a hamster in a hat and pull out an electric toaster.
It shouldn't be that surprising that putting basic elements and molecules together can also make something living. Humans don't like that, because they think life is too special, and then draw an arbitrary line someplace in the continuum of the process and announce, "All processes must stop here, and can't proceed further without the help of a creator."
Humans say this, not because it's true, but because there is at present a universal gap in knowledge (though not necessarily in the process). Since we don't know, we claim to know by assigning the unknown to a creator god. Some do this because it assures a place for their god. Some do it because they hate not knowing everything.
In the end, it's a good bet that life is just chemistry, or atoms if you want to put it that way.
Yes, the whole is greater than the parts. That is a very good point. But it destroys reductionism in general and materialism in particular. They are based on the opposite of that. Of course assuming that the whole isn't greater than the parts is a very useful assumption. Doesn't make it true. For instance, in most cases, we can assume the world is flat. Unless you are going long distance (great circle paths of airplanes), or around the world, it doesn't matter that it isn't flat. A very good approximation is just that. Nothing wrong with using approximations. But assuming that the approximation, isn't an approximation ... that is short sightedness.
We can disagree what "whole is greater than the parts" ... that is philosophy etc. But just getting people to admit to the fallibility of reductionism and materialism is very hard, when the whole self image of the person is based on that kind of ... nihilism.
Quote from: Mike Cl on September 09, 2018, 11:57:29 PM
I know this is what you believe. G-d cannot be 'life' for it was never alive--just the imagination of some. G-d is simply a fiction; can you demonstrate otherwise??
Yeah, when the fiction of choice is "god", some evidence might be nice. Having never seen any evidence, "god" seems a bit like a unicorn or a frablet. Never see a frablet? Neither have I. Imaginings are for childhood and unsure adults.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 12, 2018, 04:21:43 AM
Yeah, when the fiction of choice is "god", some evidence might be nice. Having never seen any evidence, "god" seems a bit like a unicorn or a frablet. Never see a frablet? Neither have I. Imaginings are for childhood and unsure adults.
I define all of you as AI bots. Therefore there are no humans on the Internet, just bots. (sarc)
Quote from: Cavebear on September 12, 2018, 04:21:43 AM
Yeah, when the fiction of choice is "god", some evidence might be nice. Having never seen any evidence, "god" seems a bit like a unicorn or a frablet. Never see a frablet? Neither have I. Imaginings are for childhood and unsure adults.
Or sci-fi writers.
Quote from: Mike Cl on September 12, 2018, 09:00:57 AM
Or sci-fi writers.
Don't steal my "frablet" idea! I'm practically done with the first paragraph.
"It was a dark and frablet. Suddenly, a frablet rang out. Well, you know, every happy frablet is alike; each unhappy frablet is unhappy in its own way. It was the best frablet of times and it was the worst frablet of times. It was a bright cold frablet in April, and the clocks were striking frablet. It was a queer sultry frablet, and he told the truth frabletly. If you want to know the truth about it, they say, when trouble come, close frablets. But in my younger and more vulnerable frablets , as Gregor frablet awoke one morning,he said "call me frablet".
Best I have so far. I may have underused my main theme of frablets.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 12, 2018, 09:32:15 AM
Don't steal my "frablet" idea! I'm practically done with the first paragraph.
"It was a dark and frablet. Suddenly, a frablet rang out. Well, you know, every happy frablet is alike; each unhappy frablet is unhappy in its own way. It was the best frablet of times and it was the worst frablet of times. It was a bright cold frablet in April, and the clocks were striking frablet. It was a queer sultry frablet, and he told the truth frabletly. If you want to know the truth about it, they say, when trouble come, close frablets. But in my younger and more vulnerable frablets , as Gregor frablet awoke one morning,he said "call me frablet".
Best I have so far. I may have underused my main theme of frablets.
Frablet on!!!
Quote from: Mike Cl on September 12, 2018, 11:18:45 AM
Frablet on!!!
How many of those famous opening frablets did you recognize?
May the frablet universe emerge as frablet is and ever will be.
Quote from: Mike Cl on September 12, 2018, 09:00:57 AM
Or sci-fi writers.
But scifi is our inevitable future, of human colonizing (and fucking) today the solar system, tomorrow the galaxy (rather Nazi that).
Technical utopia is central to Marxism, Fascism, Stalinism, etc. Secular utopia, with a free lunch.
Quote from: Baruch on September 12, 2018, 12:50:18 PM
But scifi is our inevitable future, of human colonizing (and fucking) today the solar system, tomorrow the galaxy (rather Nazi that).
Technical utopia is central to Marxism, Fascism, Stalinism, etc. Secular utopia, with a free lunch.
I never thought of sci-fi as a prediction of the future. At first, I thought of them as simply adventures--Tom Swift and all that. Edgar Rice Burroughs brought fantasy into my life--especially John Carter on Mars and Pellucidar. And Robert A Heinlein brought social commentary. My fav. sci-fi and fantasy writers were those who worked social commentary into their stories.
Quote from: Mike Cl on September 12, 2018, 08:14:14 PM
I never thought of sci-fi as a prediction of the future. At first, I thought of them as simply adventures--Tom Swift and all that. Edgar Rice Burroughs brought fantasy into my life--especially John Carter on Mars and Pellucidar. And Robert A Heinlein brought social commentary. My fav. sci-fi and fantasy writers were those who worked social commentary into their stories.
But, you like classic scifi from before 1950. You want the future, as it was imagined in the past. I have enjoyed that too. Jules Verne impressed me. That isn't the majority view. Most scifi fans are Aristotelians, seeing utopia drawing us into the future, teleology of the progressive sort, not the acorn vs oak sort.
Quote from: Baruch on September 12, 2018, 08:48:46 PM
But, you like classic scifi from before 1950. You want the future, as it was imagined in the past. I have enjoyed that too. Jules Verne impressed me. That isn't the majority view. Most scifi fans are Aristotelians, seeing utopia drawing us into the future, teleology of the progressive sort, not the acorn vs oak sort.
Jules Verne stuff has made good movies, I guess. Don't like his style of writing; ideas are great, but not to my liking much. I prefer writers from the late '50's and into the 90's, with the '60/'70's my usual fav stuff. I think Heinlein was my most consistent fav and have read just about all of what he has written. Some of the new stuff I've read I like--read all the Hunger Games and most of Harry Potter. My favorite theme is post apocalypse. Loved The Stand, Swan, The Earth Abides and On The Beach--stuff like that.
Quote from: Mike Cl on September 12, 2018, 08:14:14 PM
I never thought of sci-fi as a prediction of the future. At first, I thought of them as simply adventures--Tom Swift and all that. Edgar Rice Burroughs brought fantasy into my life--especially John Carter on Mars and Pellucidar. And Robert A Heinlein brought social commentary. My fav. sci-fi and fantasy writers were those who worked social commentary into their stories.
Sci-fi isn't a prediction as it is an exploration of what
might happen under certain conditions, usually the development of a new and powerful technology. A "what if?" story rather than a prophecy.
They've always been full of social commentary. Personally, I view Mary Shelley's Frankenstein as the first true science fiction story (no offense, Lucian) and that story gives us the iconic mad scientist as well as the hated monster who isn't truly a monster.
Quote from: Hydra009 on September 12, 2018, 11:29:04 PM
Sci-fi isn't a prediction as it is an exploration of what might happen under certain conditions, usually the development of a new and powerful technology. A "what if?" story rather than a prophecy.
They've always been full of social commentary. Personally, I view Mary Shelley's Frankenstein as the first true science fiction story (no offense, Lucian) and that story gives us the iconic mad scientist as well as the hated monster who isn't truly a monster.
Mary Shelly would have found tinkering with trans-species genetics truly ... Island of Dr Moreau.
Quote from: Mike Cl on September 12, 2018, 09:50:24 PM
Jules Verne stuff has made good movies, I guess. Don't like his style of writing; ideas are great, but not to my liking much. I prefer writers from the late '50's and into the 90's, with the '60/'70's my usual fav stuff. I think Heinlein was my most consistent fav and have read just about all of what he has written. Some of the new stuff I've read I like--read all the Hunger Games and most of Harry Potter. My favorite theme is post apocalypse. Loved The Stand, Swan, The Earth Abides and On The Beach--stuff like that.
If you liked
On the Beach you might enjoy
The Last Ship (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Ship_(novel)), if you haven't already read it.
Quote from: Unbeliever on September 13, 2018, 01:44:21 PM
If you liked On the Beach you might enjoy The Last Ship (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Ship_(novel)), if you haven't already read it.
I tried reading The Last Ship a year ago. Read the jacket and just knew it would love it! Something about the writing style drove me nuts and I did not even finish it. That is a rare thing for me. Watched a few of the episodes of the TV show, and the same thing happened. They became too outlandish and I haven't watched one for quite awhile.
I didn't even know there was a TV show until this morning.
I don't know Mike, I just watched the trailer for the first season of The Last Ship, and it doesn't look like the book I remember.
Quote from: Unbeliever on September 13, 2018, 05:47:17 PM
I don't know Mike, I just watched the trailer for the first season of The Last Ship, and it doesn't look like the book I remember.
Usually the book is much smaller than the ship ;-) And is just walls of text, no video.
Quote from: Unbeliever on September 13, 2018, 05:47:17 PM
I don't know Mike, I just watched the trailer for the first season of The Last Ship, and it doesn't look like the book I remember.
I think you are correct. it did not follow the book in most respects. I did not care for the TV show, either.
Quote from: Mike Cl on September 12, 2018, 08:14:14 PM
I never thought of sci-fi as a prediction of the future. At first, I thought of them as simply adventures--Tom Swift and all that. Edgar Rice Burroughs brought fantasy into my life--especially John Carter on Mars and Pellucidar. And Robert A Heinlein brought social commentary. My fav. sci-fi and fantasy writers were those who worked social commentary into their stories.
I more often think of modern sci-fi as thoughtful social speculation. What I like to read is more thought about how existing society might change in the future than Buck Rogers nonsense. That's just adventurism.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 15, 2018, 01:01:48 AM
I more often think of modern sci-fi as thoughtful social speculation. What I like to read is more thought about how existing society might change in the future than Buck Rogers nonsense. That's just adventurism.
No doubt, you prefer Ming the Merciless ;-)
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on September 08, 2018, 07:42:41 PM
I am on the way of being deist.
I think Richard dawkins is deist, too...At the most positive point of view, he is agnostik atheist.
He is an agnostic atheist, yes. So he can't be a deist.
Quote from: Baruch on September 15, 2018, 06:11:38 AM
No doubt, you prefer Ming the Merciless ;-)
Wrong, as usual.
Quote from: Baruch on September 27, 2018, 12:44:41 PM
OK, so you prefer Princess Aura?
I do not accept the reality of ny in that book. Nor any other fiction. Enjoying reading them does not imply belief.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 27, 2018, 12:49:30 PM
I do not accept the reality of ny in that book. Nor any other fiction. Enjoying reading them does not imply belief.
Didn't say you did. And it is clear you aren't 5 years old. However entertainment is often ... what if? What entertains people isn't necessarily rational or ethical.
Quote from: Baruch on September 27, 2018, 12:55:13 PM
Didn't say you did. And it is clear you aren't 5 years old. However entertainment is often ... what if? What entertains people isn't necessarily rational or ethical.
That's why I can read Tolkien. The willing suspension of disbelief. And BTW, I just ordered the new trilogy in hardback. Christopher says "thats the end".
Quote from: Cavebear on September 27, 2018, 12:58:58 PM
That's why I can read Tolkien. The willing suspension of disbelief. And BTW, I just ordered the new trilogy in hardback. Christopher says "thats the end".
Is that how you read political platforms? Seems that is how most people read them.
Quote from: Baruch on September 27, 2018, 01:12:18 PM
Is that how you read political platforms? Seems that is how most people read them.
I never pay any attention to politic platforms. And I pay no attention to candidate speeches either. I pay attention to what parties and candidates have done in the past.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 01, 2018, 03:02:36 PM
I never pay any attention to politic platforms. And I pay no attention to candidate speeches either. I pay attention to what parties and candidates have done in the past.
You are clearly unqualified to be be a voter, or a mark.
Quote from: Baruch on October 01, 2018, 06:45:42 PM
You are clearly unqualified to be be a voter, or a mark.
If you mean "mark" as a sucker, no. But it means I AM qualified to be a voter as most of us are.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 04, 2018, 05:52:14 AM
If you mean "mark" as a sucker, no. But it means I AM qualified to be a voter as most of us are.
Qualified? Bwahaha ... but the original response is about ... that you claim to not be taken in by political BS. I was accepting your self description, which is someone unfit to participate in politics (it is all BS) or even be a consumer (because I think you said once that advertisements don't effect you).
If you don't treat propaganda as gospel, as advertisements as nirvana ... you have no business being in the US ... the grifter nation.
Quote from: Baruch on October 04, 2018, 06:33:36 AM
Qualified? Bwahaha ... but the original response is about ... that you claim to not be taken in by political BS. I was accepting your self description, which is someone unfit to participate in politics (it is all BS) or even be a consumer (because I think you said once that advertisements don't effect you).
If you don't treat propaganda as gospel, as advertisements as nirvana ... you have no business being in the US ... the grifter nation.
I vote seriously, based on past actions I can evaluate rather than campaign claims (which mean nothing). IOW, candidates can't trick me with the "words of the day".
Most people or voters don't seem to think that way, though
Quote from: Cavebear on October 04, 2018, 07:46:08 AM
I vote seriously, based on past actions I can evaluate rather than campaign claims (which mean nothing). IOW, candidates can't trick me with the "words of the day".
Most people or voters don't seem to think that way, though
Most people or voters don't think. That could be dangerous, to think.
Quote from: Baruch on October 04, 2018, 12:40:59 PM
Most people or voters don't think. That could be dangerous, to think.
Even fatal, in some places. But that doesn't stop most people.
The surest way to get killed fast historically is to vote the wrong way. Or not cheer loudly enough...
Quote from: Cavebear on October 04, 2018, 07:46:08 AM
I vote seriously, based on past actions I can evaluate rather than campaign claims (which mean nothing).
That must be rough on politicians running for their first political position.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 04, 2018, 01:29:46 PM
That must be rough on politicians running for their first political position.
Actually it is. But everyone has some sort of past voters can learn about. And that does matter. No one appears from out of nowhere. They may have been a city official, a Senator's Chief Of Staff, a community activist, a military officer, a writer, etc. But everyone has a history of actions and decisions.
Don't pay attention to what they say today; pay attention to what they did before. It's harder to go wrong that way.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 04, 2018, 01:29:46 PM
That must be rough on politicians running for their first political position.
All candidates should be waterboarded. Incumbents should get it worse.
Quote from: Baruch on October 05, 2018, 12:22:04 PM
All candidates should be waterboarded. Incumbents should get it worse.
Why should candidates be waterboarded. Waterboarding is a "cruel and unusual punishment". Ans why should incumbents get even crueler treatment?
Quote from: Cavebear on October 07, 2018, 06:27:07 AM
Why should candidates be waterboarded. Waterboarding is a "cruel and unusual punishment". Ans why should incumbents get even crueler treatment?
Draco ... early Athenian lawgiver ... from which "draconian" originated. Why Draco, did you prescribe the death penalty for most offenses? Because, he replied, I could think of no greater punishment for greater offenses.
Quote from: Baruch on October 07, 2018, 01:29:37 PM
Draco ... early Athenian lawgiver ... from which "draconian" originated. Why Draco, did you prescribe the death penalty for most offenses? Because, he replied, I could think of no greater punishment for greater offenses.
Do I recall correctly that Draco landed in Persia? Unhappily?
Quote from: Cavebear on October 07, 2018, 02:16:45 PM
Do I recall correctly that Draco landed in Persia? Unhappily?
Nope that was the real, complex story of Themistocles. Draco lives 200 years before.
Both Themistocles and Pausanias (another Spartan general, not a king) who defeated the Persians, ended up attempting to defect to the other side. That history is never portrayed. Pausanias died in custody. Themistocles was exiled, and from there escaped to the court of the Great King. He took one year to learn Persian, and was granted some authority and land as a minor Persian official in Asia Minor. Themistocles was primarily responsible for the victory of Salamis. And Pausanias was primarily responsible for the victory of Plataea.
Quote from: Baruch on October 07, 2018, 02:23:59 PM
Nope that was the real, complex story of Themistocles. Draco lives 200 years before.
Well, when I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Which is why I said I was unsure about Draco without looking him up.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 07, 2018, 02:29:14 PM
Well, when I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Which is why I said I was unsure about Draco without looking him up.
Edited post above, to clarify.
Quote from: Baruch on October 07, 2018, 02:30:11 PM
Edited post above, to clarify.
And well done too. I knew, but remembered the wrong guy. I think we only got about 30 minutes in history about that time.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 07, 2018, 02:54:15 PM
And well done too. I knew, but remembered the wrong guy. I think we only got about 30 minutes in history about that time.
That was in the good old days. Now kids get even less ;-(
Quote from: Baruch on October 07, 2018, 02:56:12 PM
That was in the good old days. Now kids get even less ;-(
Yeah. A news article today says that Virginia students can't waste time learning about (a long list of basic history I can't list because I might get one wrong and you would object). Conveniently one was the Civil War...
Quote from: Cavebear on October 07, 2018, 03:01:33 PM
Yeah. A news article today says that Virginia students can't waste time learning about (a long list of basic history I can't list because I might get one wrong and you would object). Conveniently one was the Civil War...
Public school students I suppose. How will things go if it all goes down the PC memory hole ... there will be no recollection of what the South or North did, or why they fought (which I think is a significant part of who the US is) Who would benefit from this? Que bono.
Quote from: Baruch on October 07, 2018, 07:41:00 PM
Public school students I suppose. How will things go if it all goes down the PC memory hole ... there will be no recollection of what the South or North did, or why they fought (which I think is a significant part of who the US is) Who would benefit from this? Que bono.
To learn from history helps us shape the future.
But it is a reality that what we learn in school has no practical value. It simply does not work in real situations, in real life. So students are right when asking "where to make use of all these knowledge?"...
If god does not wish, human does not die
If god does not wish, leaf does not fall.
God has a time schedule , a programme...
An event never exists even a minute late or even a minute early...
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on October 09, 2018, 06:36:00 PM
To learn from history helps us shape the future.
But it is a reality that what we learn in school has no practical value. It simply does not work in real situations, in real life. So students are right when asking "where to make use of all these knowledge?"...
Originally, 100 years ago, there was an attempt to separate practical education from academic education. But in the US, in my lifetime, there was a push back toward academic education. That every American should hope to go to college, to become a lawyer or doctor.
Common sense, is all the prejudice we learn before we are 20. And we spend the rest of our lives un-learning it.
Quote from: Baruch on October 07, 2018, 07:41:00 PM
Public school students I suppose. How will things go if it all goes down the PC memory hole ... there will be no recollection of what the South or North did, or why they fought (which I think is a significant part of who the US is) Who would benefit from this? Que bono.
Charter school students get even less actual history. Some of them get "the Earth is on'y 6,000 years old. Better ones teach that humans are older than that but didn't "descend from Chimps" (and I agree but for different reasons).
The failing of public schools (from lack of funding and religious politics) may be the end of our knowledgeable society.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 10, 2018, 01:39:49 AM
Charter school students get even less actual history. Some of them get "the Earth is on'y 6,000 years old. Better ones teach that humans are older than that but didn't "descend from Chimps" (and I agree but for different reasons).
The failing of public schools (from lack of funding and religious politics) may be the end of our knowledgeable society.
Per Jefferson, the end of democracy ... but then that failure is a feature, not a bug.
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on October 09, 2018, 06:42:07 PM
If god does not wish, human does not die
If god does not wish, leaf does not fall.
God has a time schedule , a programme...
An event never exists even a minute late or even a minute early...
Then I wish god would grant you a brain.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 10, 2018, 09:08:12 AM
Then I wish god would grant you a brain.
No God can, Check the Wiz though.
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on October 09, 2018, 06:36:00 PM
To learn from history helps us shape the future.
This is actually a good point.
QuoteBut it is a reality that what we learn in school has no practical value. It simply does not work in real situations, in real life. So students are right when asking "where to make use of all these knowledge?"...
Okay, I'll bite. Which subject does not work in real life? English? Math? Chemistry? History? Foreign Language?
Even stuff that seemingly has no practical use (music appreciation or art appreciation) can serve as an important stepping stone for something big down the line.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 10, 2018, 12:16:16 PM
This is actually a good point.
Okay, I'll bite. Which subject does not work in real life? English? Math? Chemistry? History? Foreign Language?
Even stuff that seemingly has no practical use (music appreciation or art appreciation) can serve as an important stepping stone for something big down the line.
All knowledge is human-discovered. Not objecting to your post, just saying...
Quote from: Cavebear on October 10, 2018, 01:32:33 PM
All knowledge is human-discovered. Not objecting to your post, just saying...
Which is why it is ... monkey business ;-) All news is fake-news, all facts are ... truthiness.
Quote from: Baruch on October 10, 2018, 08:29:05 PM
Which is why it is ... monkey business ;-) All news is fake-news, all facts are ... truthiness.
You failed your Trump Test. You allowed that Facts COULD BE "truthy". Trump will get you for that.